Microsoft has revealed more details of its all-in-one PC care service dubbed OneCare Live.
Already in beta, the subscription-based package will be officially released in the US in June from retailers and via the Web. A year's subscription will cost $49.95 and will cover up to three personal computers.
Already in beta, the subscription-based package will be officially released in the US in June from retailers and via the Web. A year's subscription will cost $49.95 and will cover up to three personal computers.
The suite will offer anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall components, as well as performance optimisation utilities and back up and restore tools. Technical support - in the form of e-mail, phone and chat - will be included as part of the package.
The automatic and self-updating service is intended to make it simpler for consumers to protect and maintain their PCs. With numerous security threats exploiting the slothfulness of consumers to patch their machines in a timely manner, Microsoft will be aiming squarely at users looking to offload responsibility for maintaining their own systems. Combined with a low price, the proposition could prove attractive to a large proportion of the Windows user base.
News source: PC Pro
alternatively, you could stay safe, stay clean. run in standard user context - like all other modern OS's
Wake up people, the fact that an OS will run code the user tells it to is not a flaw.
Having said that, I am a little shocked that they are charging for OneCare. Vista is going to include its functionality for free, so why charge XP users for the same thing?
Yeah..... right.
onecare live, and windows defender on the other hand, are good products made by a decent company. Get off your high horse and start living in the real world Matt500
Love that fact it's only $50 and can be installed on upto THREE pcs. Great Stuff.
Go MS!!!
Instead of getting BSD grade security sell your crappy bug ridden product to the masses.
Go MS indeed.
All you MS haters need to think before spewing out BS....go back to your Mac and shut up.
Many users run Windows without anti virus software and never have a problems. I myself run Anti Virus software and in the last three years I haven't received one virus. This product isn't protecting you from "holes" in Microsoft's security but rather protecting you from being stupid and opening up a email attachment you shouldn't have or not updating your java program and having a Trojan downloaded to your machine. There is only so much Microsoft can do, the rest is up to the user.
I am not saying Windows is perfect or that it couldn't get better but what I am saying is Microsoft has make some big changes to the way it patches Windows and it has gotten much better over the last few years.
Macs are more or less just as bad/good in security, but y make viruses etc for Mac when the masses use windows?
Sorta goes against the whole idea of making a virus if you create it for the less used OS.
just my thoughts anyway
Besides from being the same company that introduces the vulnerabilities.
No wait, that's not controversial at all... :p
In addition Microsoft in doing this has left itself open to attacks from users who see vulnerabilities go unpatched for a long period. As a way of forcing them to signup for one care.
Finally, Harper just go to the toilet
I dont like the app alot but its extremly simple and integrates well with windows. It should be a great product for the less tech savvy people.
I prefer PC-Cillian myself, but it's good to have this on the market. I also can see no issue with MS releasing an antivirus tool. Not all malicious code attacks the vulnerabilities in the OS itself anyway so it's still good to have. If they get around to bundling anti spyware then that will be another incentive since in my oppinion thats the best anti spyware tool around.
Anyone got any comments regarding the actual performance of the anti virus part of this?
However, since the ignorant fools outnumber the rest of use, Microsoft is sure to make a tidy profit from their OneCare product.
I'll be fair and wait for OneCare to actual hit RTM statua before I pass judement on it, but frankly I'm not optomistic about it. Microsoft does have one advantage no other vedor does: they have access to the Windows source code, so they can use that to leverage the Windows kernal, potentialy getting better performance out of anty sotware they write than another vendor possibly could. Well, in theory anyways. As we all know, this isn't always reflected in the actual product. That said, I can't see OneCare being a product that I'd recomend, at least not initialy. Why would I pay Microsoft when I've got free software that does everything I need? Besides, do you really trust Microsoft to protect your computer? I sure as hell don't.
Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammer and a good spell checker and then use them.
Or, go back and finish school.
for those that are savy, ie everyone here, then yes, theres always free alternatives, whether they are as good as the paid for services is a never ending debate. (by paid I dont mean the likes of norton but some of the other ones)
Instead of making posts filled with personal insults/attacks, perhaps you would do well to discuss any points that were made that you may have had issue with.
And a bit of consideration for people for whom English may be a second language is in order. There are many people posting here that use English as a secondary language. Plus, consider the possibility of typos.
There is no need to start offtopic flames here.
Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammer and a good spell checker and then use them.
Or, go back and finish school."
Speaking of proper gramm*a*r and spelling...
"Croquant,
Before you yell about ignorance, get a good grammar and a good spell checker and then use them.
Otherwise, go back and finish school."
buy a subscription cos we made your machine so complex you'll be nailed if you don't
duh!
like, doesn't a decent adsl modem have a firewall anyway these days?
There's plenty of quality free security software aimed for home use to pick from. Easy to use too!
I guess you're just paying for the tech support here, really...
Can't see any special advantages here otherwise, and it's clearly nothing I'll go for.
If I don't get a free subscription from being a Beta tester, I'll be giving them my $50 just after the release.
Last edited by bangbang023 on 08 Feb 2006 - 21:04
After all MS could equally introduce vulnerabilities into the OS and force people to purchase OneCare.
At least a resident scanner should be included in Windows. (If Windows can have a basic firewall and antispyware, I don't see why security can't be hardened further with antivirus?)
The end user would prefer not to have to configure anything anyway. Those with more advanced needs could always buy commercial software.
They charge for it, people complain about it.
It's a no win scenario for MS.
The real tragedy is, of course, they'll sell it by the bucketload. And if they don't then hey, I can hear it already, "The security is not our fault. We released OneCare, it's up to Customers to purchase it. We've done our bit."
Someone said it's a no-win situation for Microsoft. It's quite the opposite; pure win/win.
The sell an OS and so have a moral obligation to make it as secure as possible, but the world and the dog knows that an OS cannot be hundred percent secure and there will always exist vulnerabilities (one primary reason being the OS is continuously being changed, getting new features and functionality).
The anti-blah blah softwares are designed to protect (well to be precise, to prevent) a computer from future attacks (not for an exploit that is already known) and therefore is a bonus on top of the OS software.
As soon as a vulnerability gets discovered, the patches for that should be made available for free.
We've already discussed MS's backdoors in their security software in another thread. MS is not trustworthy. Even if they were (and they are NOT), their security products are of poor quality compared to the competition.
Personally, I use Symantec AV corp ed., Clamwin AV (opensource), Ewido (free), Kaspersky, McAfee AV, F-Prot, and Sygate (discontinued, so DL it on p2p, still the best). I like multiple opinions. No single AV is 100% reliable. I don't keep anything running in the background except Sygate, only do on-demand scans.
Oh, and if you want to improve your security, stay away from IE and Outlook express. It's that simple.
I believe, for the most part, that it is the consumer's fault for getting a virus. Obviously the vulnerabilities in the OS help that along, but for christ sakes, don't open attachments from people you don't know or some email written in some other language.
I've had Norton Systemworks running on my computer ever since I got it a year and a half ago, and I've been "threatened by about 2 viruses, of which NAV took care of immediately. I'm pretty sure that number has been zero ever since I switched to Firefox.
Now, Microsoft sees they can easily get into this market and make money off of it. They CANNOT release this for free, because they would get railed by anti-trust ventures. At least they are making something that does take care of vulnerabilities that show up.
For you people who like to criticize, I'd like to see you write a program that has 40 MILLION+ lines of code and not have unseen vulnerabilities in it. I'm waiting.
I think I may look into OneCare (probably because I am technically in the beta) after it comes out to more reviews. Plus I can probably have my parents pay for it back home and use it on their computer and my computer here.
-Spenser
Also, I have to say that there are some viruses, tojan horses etc... that doesn't require you to open attachments or click on a link to activate, all you need is a windows computer with an open internet connection. And for the most part, I think people should be more fearful to root kits than viruses, TJ, etc... because you of the fact that you can't see them. Even if you can monitor the kernal, root kits can make the kernal ignor itself, making it almost impossible to rid of the root kit.
Damn, people are always picking on Microsoft. It's like Apple can commit the biggest sin ever and still be considered god, while Microsoft bends over backwards and tries to make their consumers happy, and no matter what they do, people keep complaining and saying bad things about Microsoft.
In the 90's, and even the early 00's, I'll admit Microsoft wasn't very good at this -- they were pretty cold towards their consumers and treated them like they were servants, or serfs. Nowadays Microsoft seems much more friendlier and more respectful to the public.
How about I build you a house with holes in the wall, claim I didn't know they were there (I didn't notice, I was in a rush and couldn't check over the whole house), and then get you to pay me to fix the holes? By the way, the plumbing doens't work all the time, and the electricity is on the fritz, but you shouldn't be upset because I swear I did my best.
Windows 95 was supposed to be 'safer'. Windows 98 was supposed to be safer, too. So was Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, and 2000 SP1-4, and XP SP1&2. Windows Vista is supposed to be safer too, and it already has viruses while it's still in beta.
There were about 10 000 Vista testers around the time of the first Vista virus. There's over 20 million OS X users and still not a single virus. There's even prizes being offered for the first person to successfully create a self-replicating, mass-infecting virus (like those commonly found on Windows systems), and still no virus(es). Security firms (who, in many people's opinions, are just trying to get money from the Mac market) continually claim that OS X is vulnerable, that there's theoretical ways of exploiting the OS, that the systems can be compromised (with security features enabled), and still nothing successful. A subsidiary of Symantec released a recent article saying an 'anonymous security researcher' was attacked with an 'unknown exploit' by an 'unknown attacker', but there seems to be no concrete evidence of it happening in the first place. Does Windows get more viruses because more people dislike Microsoft? Not really, because a lot of people still hate Apple and there still hasn't been anything in terms of successful exploits for OS X.
People just need to face the fact that Apple's OS X is one of the safest operating systems on the market and that Windows is just one poor excuse for an OS after another. Maybe Windows should at least look at the source code for Unix before they decide to go through with Blackcomb (Windows Vista's successor).
My challenge from above still stands. I'll edit it a bit more too to put it into perspective. I still want to see any of you trollers create a program that has 40+ million lines of code and not have any unforseen vulnerabilities that can lead to virus attacks. Then when that fails, I want you to release an AV/AS/Performance Check utility for free without getting railed by Anti-Trust lawsuits.
Again, I'm still waiting.
-Spenser
Viruses are NOT all issues from Windows, many socially engineer people into running them, is that Microsoft's fault? NO! Microsoft provides a platform to run code on, so you can use your computer the way you want to use it, the problem with that is, so can virus writers. To make Windows super secure, the security model that obviously nobody can provide, which you all expect Windows to provide, would require that ALL code executable on the system is verified by Microsoft, and authorized by Microsoft to execute, then, and only then, can the computer be truly secure.
No operating system is safe from viruses, the lack of market share doesn't make them a prime target like Windows does, and don't say that's not an issue. If any non-blind firefox observer has noticed, there have been many, many flaws released for it, hell, 8 in the past week, and this is a direct result of increased market share, as it went up, the issues went up. The difference is, these flaws aren't public knowledge (Oh, I wonder why
Anti-virus software is designed to stop this, it's designed to stop executable code with malicious intent, whether it's some virus that's designed to tick you off with some stupid window that won't disappear or one that deletes your files/system files, slows down your system, etc., that's it's role, whether the operating system allows it or not is irrelevant, if the USER can do it, then a virus can do it.
So unless all computer users in the world suddenly i